Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Then I would argue the Egyptians considered Joseph an Egyptian, even if he was not originally from Egypt. He saved the nation and helped it prosper in its time of greatest need.

China has arguably saved America, or atleast helped in a time of need, is the Chinese government American?

Fair enough.
(The silly arguement trick always works)  .

So I must have my history mistaken. Was Paul not Jewish, or were there Jewish people that were not among the "conquered" people groups of Rome.

Also, I thought Roman was being defined as "from Rome," or was that just for sites?

All Jewish people were among the "conquered" people groups of Rome, but a considerably smaller group were granted Roman citizenship.  It is because of his citizenship that he is considered roman.

So bear with me here. As a host (or player), how will I know who was in the "smaller" group? Are all of the Pharisees Roman? How about the Sadducees? Is it only Paul?

As for the sites only being defined as "from Rome," that's because otherwise Nero would at the very least discard almost every N.T. site in the game and if the argument was accepted that if a place was ever under Roman control it would be "roman," he would discard near ever site that exists.

I understand the rationale, I just have a concern that defining Roman as being "from Rome" in one circumstance, but having it mean something else in another could become confusing. I realize that the decision has already been made and that my post will be perceived as a complaint, but I hope that there will be a realization of how this could be a potential contradiction.

Back on topic, the determination of a Babylonian identifier for a character should be at least discussed in the context that "citizen" is a word that was largely coined by the Romans, so there may be equivalent titles in older civilizations that could constitute similar significance.

I know for a fact atleast one other pharisee is roman, I'll go find the verse and edit this.
*Edit*
Seems I was wrong, he lives in the Roman Empire but there's no evidence he's a Roman Citizen.
Luke 7:36-50 Simon the Pharisee (not printed).

Quote from: Drrek on July 01, 2011, 10:03:12 PM

All Jewish people were among the "conquered" people groups of Rome, but a considerably smaller group were granted Roman citizenship.  It is because of his citizenship that he is considered roman.

So bear with me here. As a host (or player), how will I know who was in the "smaller" group? Are all of the Pharisees Roman? How about the Sadducees? Is it only Paul?

All free male occupants of Tarsus in 66 BC were granted Roman citizenship, a status which was passed down to their descendents.  So, as a host all you would need to do is check to see which other Pharisees and/or Sadducees had a father or patri-lineal grandfather from Tarsus. 

I wasn't talking about Joseph. I was talking about Paul. I stated that Roman citizenship was a very exclusive right given only to certain cities that was recieved from his father. I'm not sure why you talk about Joseph.

And FWIW, Joseph should be Egyptian.

Back on topic, regarding multiple art activations:
Split Altar might see play!

Also: Of course the new article would be released the day I leave for Creation and don't have internet for 4 days.

Hey guys,
just got back from vacation and finally had a chance to examine the card in depth.
My first reaction was "Holy crap that's awesome, Babs will get some play again."

Then I thought about it a bit and realized something, this helps Disciples more then it hurts them because:

1. It allows AoCP to take out the opponent's entire defense (as mentioned in the article)

2. Without playing or searching Babylonians have no real way to get initiative (other then Ashpenaz and Nebushashban) so most characters can get initiative to play the aforementioned AoCP.

3. it doesn't hurt Disciples drawing, yes Matthew gets taken out, but Fishing boat and Pentecost are both unaffected (FB is in set aside and Pentecost is a set aside which means it can not be negated).   

1. How do you know there isn't a low number bab in the new set?

2. There are confirmations of lots of new Disciples / Thadd counters in the new set.

3. Drawing is OP regardless, and that won't change.

I think it's really funny when people try to place spoiled new cards into the current metagame and don't consider the possibility of what other new cards exsist.

I predict that there is a broken deck in the next meta.

1. How do you know there isn't a low number bab in the new set?

2. There are confirmations of lots of new Disciples / Thadd counters in the new set.

3. Drawing is OP regardless, and that won't change.

I think it's really funny when people try to place spoiled new cards into the current metagame and don't consider the possibility of what other new cards exsist.

1. There's only one Bab, and he does jack squat with this card up

2. I know there are Thad counters, that's why I didn't mention him

3. That's exactly my point, giving Disciples the ability to nuke an opponents entire defense and shut down their (non-disciple) drawing at the cost of Thad is a very favorable trade

I think it's really funny when people act all smug and don't consider the possibility that other people have set lists too   

because there has to be some people that complain about not having it.

Iron Pan can be placed on Ezekiel freeing up a space on your artifact pile.  Am I missing something here?  I thought I remembered a discussion in Rulings regarding Priestly Breastplate being placed on a priest didn't really free up the art pile based on the artifact activation rules.  Just curious...